labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D94063#2483546 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94063#2483546>, @dblaikie wrote: > If it's better to write it using C++ source and custom clang flags I can do > that instead (it'll be an -mllvm flag - looks like there's one other test > that does that: `lldb/test/API/lang/objc/forward-decl/TestForwardDecl.py: > dict(CFLAGS_EXTRAS="-dwarf-version=5 -mllvm -accel-tables=Dwarf"))`) - > means the test will be a bit more convoluted to tickle the subprogram ranges, > but not much - just takes two functions+function-sections. I certainly wouldn't want to drop the existing test. However, it could be useful to have c++ test too. This one could feature a more complicated executable, and be more open-ended/exploratory and test end-to-end functionality (including compiler integration), instead of a targeted "did we parse DW_AT_ranges correctly" regression test. Then this test could go into the `API` test category, as we have the ability to run those kinds of tests against different compilers. However, all of that is strictly optional. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D94063/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D94063 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
